Taking Woodstock

Director: Ang Lee (Lust, Caution, Brokeback Mountain)

Screenwriters: James Schamus (Lust, Caution, Hulk) and Elliott Tiber (Rue Haute)

Cast: Demetri Martin (Paper Heart, The Rocker), Imelda Staunton (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Vera Drake)

Length: 2 hrs

Synopsis: In an attempt to save his family’s failing hotel, Elliot Teichberg (Martin) offers to host the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival in his small hometown.  The crowd attracted to the concert soon becomes larger than anybody expected and the event changes not only the town, but Elliot’s life.

Analysis: Director Ang Lee is usually apt at making films with engaging and dynamic characters.  One need only look to 2005’s affecting Brokeback Mountain.  The characters in that film were complex and believable in their humanity.  That film examined a larger question of humanity and love through the story of one couple.  In his latest film Taking Woodstock, Lee uses the same tactic by recalling the events of the historic Woodstock concert that took place during the summer of 1969 through the point of view of a young man who experienced it.  However, unlike the previous film, the characters in Taking Woodstock lack complexity.  Most show promise at their introduction, but remain stereotypes throughout the film.

Perhaps the closest approximation to a fully-developed character in Taking Woodstock is Elliot Teichberg, a lonely young artist who seems stuck in his small town of Bethel, New York, helping his ungrateful parents keep their failing hotel open.  In an attempt to keep the banks from foreclosing on his parents’ property, Elliot volunteers his town for a hippie music festival.  As the concert and the flood of hippies that arrive change the face of the town, it is Elliot’s supposed personal change that is really foregrounded in the film’s plot.

Arguably, Elliot does change. He goes from a shy young man who does not know who he is and lets life take him wherever it wants, to a young man who knows exactly who he is and what he wants to do.  However, that does not mean his evolution is interesting, for throughout the film Elliot’s personality remains featureless.  A scene in which Elliot drops acid should be fun to watch, but instead it is only visually interesting because of the psychedelic colors rather than because of what it means for Elliot’s evolution.  Martin’s colorless, inexpressive portrayal certainly does not help and despite the fact that Elliot is the only character who shows any true character arch the other characters prove far more interesting because they at least exhibit personality.

Because of this stark contrast the supporting cast members are really the most engaging elements of the film.  Liev Schreiber’s turn as a transvestite ex-marine is funny and he plays the role with dignity and respect, never becoming too exaggerated and giving one of the most natural performances of the film.  Henry Goodman plays the role of Elliot’s father well and probably delivers the most touching performance of the film.  A scene in which his character describes how the concert has made him feel alive again is subtle and understated.  The standout of the film, by far, is former star of Broadway’s Spring Awakening Jonathan Groff as concert promoter Michael Lang.  Groff endows his character with a sense of mystery and hippie wisdom that never tires.  The film would have fared better with more of his presence.

As fun as the supporting cast may be, they are fundamentally flawed in their monotony.  Each character is one note and represents a single stereotype of the time.  Groff is the cool hippie dressed in a Native American style of clothing, literally riding up on a horse in most scenes.  Imelda Staunton, guilty of a horrendous display of overacting as Elliot’s intolerant immigrant mother, is supposed to serve as comic relief, but frequent scenes where she nags her son seem to make her more unrealistic rather than believable.  And Schreiber is the catchall character: a Vietnam vet, transvestite, though guy who pushes Elliot to experience and enjoy life.  Screenwriters Schamus and Tiber attempt to represent every cross-section of society at the time of the concert, but instead misrepresent them all.

Since Woodstock is such a large and historic event, showing what it was actually like would have certainly proven difficult regardless of who wrote or directed the film.  Unfortunately, though, the creators of Taking Woodstock fail at rendering the effects and feelings of the event by examining the types of people that went to it.  Stereotypes are not real people, and the film fails to overcome this difference.

Rating: 4.5